This sort of ad-hominem attack doesn't really have a place on Hacker News. It's no secret that Scott Cleland is an anti-Google shill, available for hire by fortune 500 companies to write books and testify in front of Congress, but the correct response to his arguments is to point out the gaps in his reasoning and prove him wrong.
Instead, this is an appeal to groupthink to disregard the fair (and not-so-fair) questions raised in the blog post, instead of responding critically to them.
While I love the pointing out of logical fallacies, this is not necessarily an ad-hominem attack on the argument. I think this post provides important context for the reading of the article. Since I did not know of the blogger's background, this comment allowed me to put it into context.
That does not make any sense. Yes, arguments should matter by their own merit, but why would we bother with a list of arguments curated by somebody that is inherently a fraud?
With the same logic you can spent a full life carefully dismissing idiotic arguments on Youtube.
Who has time for that? So his comment is very relevant. The submission itself is tainted, and goes on the "maybe ill look at that, if i live forever" pile, together with racial arguments, conspiracy theories and the political spin city puke.